Last Call Review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09
review-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-25
Requested 2014-12-11
Draft last updated 2014-12-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-29
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-12-29

Review
review-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-29






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

.





 




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




 




Document: draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-09




Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour




Review Date: 2014-12-25




IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-25




IESG Telechat date: NA




 




Summary:




This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some comments.




 




Minor issues:




-Not sure about this, [page 1] says Updates: 2865, 6158, 6929 (if approved). Can an experimental RFC update non-experimental RFCs?




I read the note in Section 12.1. Just raising the question.




   




Nits/editorial comments:




-[Page 4], Intro, it would be good to remind the reader on why the 4096 octet limit was put in place initially and what has changed since.




 




-[Page 4], Section 1, "limitation mean that"--->"limitation means that"




 




-[Page 4], "this approach does entirely solve"---> should it be "does not" ?




 




-[Page 5], "the set up"--->"the setup"




 




-[Page 5], "to implement the draft"--->"to implement the RFC"




 




-[Page 6], "NOT be used to exchange more than 100K of data", not clear what 100K is here? bytes? why?




 




-[Page 7], "more than 4K of data", as above, not clear what 4K is?




 




-[Page 9], "the RADIUS and COA"-->"CoA" instead of "COA"




 




-[Page 14],"other then Additional-Authorization."--->"other than ..."




 




-[Page 14],"

Compliant

 RADIUS Chlient"-->"...client"




 




-[Page 14],"if tey had"--->"if they had"




 




-[Page 27], "into a even"--->"into an even"




 




 




-Other:




* Not sure if this RFC should reference to draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets as another alternative to look for?




* Please spell at first use: EAP, NAS, PKI, SAML,ABFAB




*chunk/chunking, would it be better to use fragment/fragmenting/fragmentation instead ? or mention the two terms are used interchangeably.




 




 




 




Best Regards,




Meral




---




Meral Shirazipour




Ericsson




Research




www.ericsson.com